ORDER : 1. Instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 187/2021 dated 15.12.2021 registered at Police Station Transport Nagar, Pali and all consequential proceedings pursuant thereto, for offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 306, 313, 506 and 34 IPC. 2. Facts in brief are that the respondent No. 2/complainant submitted a written report before the SHO, PS Transport Nagar, District Pali inter-alia alleging therein that marriage of his younger sister Smt. Jyoti Kanwar was solemnized with one Raghuraj Singh as per Hindu religion and customary rites on 26.02.2009. In the marriage, they incurred expenditures more than their capacity and gave gold silver ornaments, clothes, household goods and Rs. 1,50,000/- cash. It has been alleged that after the marriage, in-laws of his sister, including husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law (Jethani), sister-in-law (Nanad) and brother-in-law (Nandoi), started harassing her for demand of dowry and also gave beating to his sister after consuming liquior. Out of the wedlock, sister of the complainant gave birth to daughter Nidhi in the year 2010 and son Parikshit in the year 2013. At that time also, gold and silver ornaments were given as gifts. It has been further alleged that the sister of the complainant told her family members that her husband Raghuraj Singh was having illicit relations with girl namely Guddi before their marriage and after marriage also, he was having relations with one Santosh and Daya and used to regularly talk with them on phone and message them. On being stopped by his sister, he used to beat her. Further, since the year 2009 onwards, the in-laws of his sister beaten her at many times and also ousted her from their house. In the year 2015, a social meeting took place, in which the accused persons assured not to harass the sister of the complainant, therefore, no case was got instituted. Further, in the year 2015, 2016 and 2018, sister of the complainant got pregnant but her mother-in-law, sister-in-law (Nanad), sister-in-law (Jethatni and husband forcibly gave abortion pills and got aborted the fetus, which caused damage to her body. Thereafter, they ousted his sister after beating her. It has been further alleged that the husband of his sister is a Head Constable and he used to threaten them saying that they could not do anything against him. Thereafter, they ousted his sister after beating her. It has been further alleged that the husband of his sister is a Head Constable and he used to threaten them saying that they could not do anything against him. It is further alleged that the accused persons kept his sister hungry and confined her for many days. On coming to know about this, the complainant and his relatives went to the place of accused and tried to make them understand but they neither understood and nor allowed Jyoti to meet her children. After the said incident, sister of the complainant submitted a written report before the SP, Bhilwara on 10.12.2021 against the accused persons mentioning about physical and mental cruelties extended to her by the accused. Further, sister of the complainant also submitted a written report before Police Station Pratap Nagar, Udaipur on 11.12.2021 alleging that on account of demand of dowry, the accused persons harassed and tortured her continuously for a period of 12 years and uttered abusive words to her and also separated her from her children. On account of ousting, his sister was residing at her parental home. It is submitted that inspite of criminal report, the custody of the children was not given to his sister Jyoti. 3. On account of the said torture, harassment and separation from her children by the accused persons, the sister of the complainant committed suicide near railway outer signal at Pali. 4. On the basis of the said report, the Police Registered a case bearing FIR No. 187/2021 for the aforesaid offences against the present petitioners and husband of deceased Jyoti and started investigation. 5. Being aggrieved by the impugned FIR, the petitioners filed the present misc. petition for quashing of the same. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier after investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet only against husband Raghuraj Singh and investigation against the present petitioners was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Counsel further submits that the marriage between Raghuraj Singh and deceased Jyoti took place on 26.02.2009 and deceased Jyoti committed suicide on 15.12.2021 i.e. after a period of more than 12 years of marriage. During this period, no complaint regarding cruelty or harassment or anything was alleged against the petitioners. The present petitioners are father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (Jeth), sister-in-law (Jethani), sister-in-law (Nanad) and brother-in-law (Nandoi) and they all were living separately from the deceased Jyoti. During this period, no complaint regarding cruelty or harassment or anything was alleged against the petitioners. The present petitioners are father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (Jeth), sister-in-law (Jethani), sister-in-law (Nanad) and brother-in-law (Nandoi) and they all were living separately from the deceased Jyoti. It is further submitted that no specific allegations have been levelled against the present petitioners. Further, the Police found the suicide note on 16.12.2021 and on the same day, the suicide note was made public. The said suicide note was sent for FSL examination and in the FSL report, it has come that it is not possible to express a definite opinion regarding authorship of the disputed paper. Thus, the suicide note so recovered by the Police is not a reliable evidence. It is further submitted that the minor children of the deceased Jyoti, in their statements, have not levelled any allegations against the present petitioners. Therefore, it is submitted, that the impugned FIR being false and frivolous may be quashed against the petitioners. To buttress his contention, counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geo Varghese vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2021 Cr. L.R. (SC) 1398 as well as judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Dhodi @ Sunita and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, SB Cr. Misc. Petition No. 8194/2018, decided on 25.01.2019. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioners and submitted that it is well settled legal position that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only in exceptional cases when the Court finds that from the allegation made in the FIR/complaint even prima facie no offence is made out against the accused but in the present case from the evidence collected during investigation and more particularly on consideration of the suicide-note of the deceased, it cannot be said that no case is made out against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. According to the learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant, in the suicide-note it has been clearly alleged by the deceased Jyoti that the present petitioners were responsible for her suicide as they were continuously torturing her mentally and physically, using abusive language and also separated her from the children and, therefore, she had no other alternative other than to commit suicide. Further, specific allegation has been made in the FIR as well as in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry. Therefore, at the initial stage, it is not proper to quash the FIR. 8. I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the FIR and material available on record. 9. A bare perusal of the impugned FIR, it is apparent that the husband Raghuraj Singh and the present petitioners used to torture the deceased mentally and physically and also harassed for demand of dowry and used abusive language against her and ousted her from matrimonial home on so many occasions. In the FIR, specific averments have been made against the present petitioners as well as husband Raghuraj Singh. 10. The Police also found the suicide note of the deceased Jyoti from the place of incident, which is available in the case diary. In the said suicide note, definite allegations have been levelled against the present petitioners for harassing her, which are sported by the statement of the prosecution witnesses. The deceased Jyoti specifically named all the present petitioners and her husband in the suicide note. She mentioned in the suicide note that her in-laws gave beating to her, used abusive language and also ousted her from the matrimonial home and also separate from her children. She further mentioned that without her children, she cannot live and for this reason, she is committing suicide. 11. The allegations levelled in the suicide note are also supported from the statements of the complainant Tanwar Singh (brother of the deceased Jyoti), Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar (mother of the deceased), Shyam Singh (uncle of the deceased), Gulab Singh (uncle of the deceased), Shankar Singh (uncle of the deceased), which were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In their statements, they specifically deposed that the accused persons were mentally and physically harassing the deceased Jyoti for demand of dowry and also gave beating to her and used abusive language against her and ousted her from the matrimonial home. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, laid down guidelines for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and criminal proceedings. The Court held: “102. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, laid down guidelines for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and criminal proceedings. The Court held: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 13. Yet again, Supreme Court, in case of Janta Dal vs. H.S. Choudhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305 , while relying on Choudhary Bhajanlal's case (supra), held: “This inherent power conferred by Section 482 of the Code should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a premature decision in a case wherein the entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved whether factual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to the cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. This Court in State of Haryana vs. Ch. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to the cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. This Court in State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, to which both of us were parties have dealt with this question at length and enunciated the law listing out the circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction in quashing proceedings. We do not, therefore, think it necessary in the present case to extensively deal with the import and intendment of the powers under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Code.” 14. In another decision in the case of Pratibha vs. Rameshwari Devi and Others, JT 2007 (11) 122, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court cannot go beyond the allegations made in the F.I.R or rely upon extraneous consideration. For the purpose of finding out the commission of a cognizable offence, the High Court is only required to look into the allegations made in the complaint or the F.I.R. 15. In another case of N. Soundaram vs. P.K. Pounraj and Another, (2014) 10 SCC 616 , Supreme Court, while reiterating the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) on scope of exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. held: “It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice [See: State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal]. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. [See: MCD vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi]. An investigation should not be shut out atthe threshold if the allegations have some substance.” [See: Vinod Raghuvanshi vs. Ajay Arora] 16. In the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 Cri. An investigation should not be shut out atthe threshold if the allegations have some substance.” [See: Vinod Raghuvanshi vs. Ajay Arora] 16. In the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 Cri. L.J. 2419, Hon’ble Apex Court, on scope of exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in Para 23 (xii) & (xv) observed as under: “(xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure. (xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence or not. The Court is not required to consider on merits whether the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.” 17. So far as the judgment cited by counsel for the petitioners in the case of Geo Varghese vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2021 Cr. L.R. (SC) 1398 is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court had quashed the FIR considering the fact that accused appellant was a teacher and any act done in discharge of his moral or legal duty without there being any circumstances to even remotely indicate that there was any intention on his part to abet the commission of suicide by one of his own pupil, which is not the case in hand. In the case of Smt. Dhodi @ Sunita and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, SB Cr. Misc. In the case of Smt. Dhodi @ Sunita and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, SB Cr. Misc. Petition No. 8194/2018, decided on 25.01.2019, this Court had quashed the FIR considering the fact that there is no allegation against the present petitioners that they have ever demanded money or treated the deceased with cruelty or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. No suicide note has been recovered. 18. The judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner do not help the case of the present petitioners in any manner as, in the present case, the suicide note is very much available on record, which is supported by the statements of the prosecution witnesses and in the suicide note, specific allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner by the deceased Jyoti for committing suicide. 19. In the facts and circumstances of the case so also in the light of the judicial pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court, no case for quashing of FIR No. 187/2021 dated 15.12.2021 registered at Police Station Transport Nagar, Pali for offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 306, 313, 506 and 34 IPC is made out. 20. Hence, this misc. petition is hereby dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed.